The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As an exercise in self-promotion for a non-notable film. Sandstein 08:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A C movie with references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMOVIE. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NMOVIE. First, to avoid any possible confusion, let me state unequivocally that I am the author of article subject to deletion and that I am also the writer, producer and director of the film. This should be apparent in the comments that follow, but if not, it should be clear now. If anyone wants to object for that reason, I will make appropriate revisions to this comment. Now, since an issue of notability has been raised, I added a feature article from The Akron Beacon Journal, which is Akron, Ohio's major newspaper. Akron, Ohio, is a major city and cultural center in the United States, and has given the world may great actors, film directors and musicians. See wikipedia entry: List of people from Akron, Ohio. Moreover, it screened at Nightlight Cinema, Akron’s premiere art cinema house, and is scheduled to screen at Cleveland Comic Con, Cleveland, Ohio in October. Beyond that, however, the film is represented on both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, and appropriate links were given to each. Both are encyclopedic sources for information on films created worldwide. Six other links (not including The Beacon Journal, above) were posted in the original article, all from non-related film critics from the United States and Canada over whom I have no authority or control. Following the link to each of those sources will show sustained and ongoing engagement in the business of film reviewing, and not a one-off review for this particular film. Blogs and websites, particularly in the area of pop culture and film, are now part of the media culture we live in, and shouldn’t be dismissed as niche when they show an serious and continuous pursuit of the topic to which they are devoted. The suggestion has been made, however, that the film could be moved to Help:Userspace draft or retrieved under Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Both actions create their own issues and a better course of action may be possible, as in the following example. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, two links that lead tho the Wayback Machine (webarchive) with less than perfect results, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, a fine and notable film, but to suggest that that film has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the later addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Salander44 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With the exception of the Beacon Journal, all of the reviewers appear to be blogs and blogs are implicitly non-reliable IMDb has been rejected as a reliable source because it's user maintained and virtually unedited. Rotten Tomatoes does have a listing, but the "tomatometer" is unavailable (although it's available for other works); I think this means that no reviewer recognized by the site has reviewed the film; there are also no viewer comments. The movie is shorter than the average TV episode.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, but to suggest that it has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Keep and improve. Very, very sorry. I forgot to sign this comment. I've added my signature now. Made in Cleveland is another movie made in Cleveland that seems to have similar issues related to references and notability. Looking at the references to the film, there are two solid newspaper references, at least two dead links, and nothing more current than 2012-2013. This isn't to criticize Made in Cleveland, but to suggest that it has been given the opportunity to replace and supplement its references and make a stronger wikipedia entry, including the addition of links from other wikipedia pages. Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is less than one-year old and has already received notice from the United States, Canada, and even the UK (review in "Slaughtered Bird"). More reviews and screenings are currently in process. So rather than taking the rash action of deletion, would it not be better to keep the same type of "Multiple Issues" flag as appears on Made in Cleveland, and periodically review for additions that make a better wikipedia entry for the film. Salander44 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:Salander44... while you may certainly make what arguments you wish, only one "keep" per editor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now Userfy. As it is beginning to get some coverage and review outside of blogs, but not enough yet in WP:RS to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. I gave the thing some tweaks for style and tone, and nice as the in-depth article in Akron Beacon Journal is, WP:NF needs more. I suggest it be userfied for now back to brand new and inexperienced contributor User:Salander44, and allowed to return once it gets more non-blog coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " Delete for now Userfy". Thank you User:MichaelQSchmidt. I want to follow this discussion for further thoughts, but I also want to know the best way to proceed if the page is deleted. Is the best process to create a Help:Userspace draft or use the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Is one option better than another? Or should both be used? Salander44 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to be deleted without a "userfy" or "draftify" suggestion, you could create a new draft using the article wizard, or you could ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for it to be restored and moved to user or draft space. Restore and move preserves the text and history. In either case it would be well, after having found enough additional sources to clearly establish notability, to ask at Deletion Review for authorization to move back to mainspace. Or an AFC reviewer could authorize that, if clearly informed of this discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove superfluous comments. Thank you for your advice and help, User:MichaelQSchmidt. Would it be possible to remove the paragraphs which have the "strikethrough"? I was not aware of the single "Keep" post policy, and moved the content to my main comment. The strikethrough comments are now superfluous. I would remove them myself, but want to avoid compounding my errors. If you or another user would not be comfortable making that deletion (of the "strikethrough" comments), could you authorize me to do so? This comment could be removed in the process, since it too, would be superfluous. Removing the comments would result in a much cleaner Deletion page. Salander44 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Salander44 Comments once made should not be removed, and once replied to or a later comment has been made should not be edited except to corect typos and invalid markup and the like, or to strike through content. The original strike through could have been done on just the 'keep" not the rest, but it has been done now and further editing would not be helpful. There is no need for "a clean page" as long as people's commetns are clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the decision here is to userfy then the closer could and should simply move the article to user space, and place ((userspace draft)) on it to mark it as a draft. Another option is to "draftify", that is move it to draftspace instead. In that case ((subst:AFC draft| <username>)) should be used. I'll want to check the sources myself before giving my own view. Note that more sources, if available, can be added while this discussion is in progress. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and if deleted, I can move the content to a work-space for you at User:Salander44/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot so you can continue work and seek input before seeking its return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Blogs are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. The daily newspaper story is not a professional review of the film itself but is a local event announcement for a New Year's Eve showing of the film. Comparing this article to other poor quality film articles is not a persuasive argument for keeping the article. We want high quality articles about films widely reviewed in reliable sources instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I can determine thus far, the standards in use by wikipedia made a lot of sense in 1967 — 50 years ago — when I was a college senior. We had a library with adequate resources, and the printed book and journal were the measures of “notability” on any subject from chemistry (my first major) to economics (I changed course) to political science (my final major, which led me to Law School and a J.D. in 1970). But this is 2017, not 1967. Can notability be measured solely by inclusion in printed journals, or newspapers which struggle to survive? Can’t it also be found in the blogs and websites of people who dedicate themselves to the task of critical comment on every variety of issue? Whether or not my article is deleted, what I find interesting is a demeaning of the people who take time to write and comment in blogs and websites, the 21st century equivalent of the printing press, but are met with derisive remarks like: “…references that are nearly as bad as the film purportedly is. Nothing of any substance - all very local or very, very niche or blogs.” The reviews were not local, save one. Nor is horror niche, although some may want to wish it so. And blogs, as blogs, should not be cavalierly dismissed. It may still be a sore point for some, but the colonies are now a free country because of “ignorant” pamphleteers, the 1776 equivalent to today’s bloggers. See, for example: “American Revolution’s Pamphleteers, Today’s Bloggers and Twitterers for Change.” ^[1], written in the context of the resistance movement in Iran. You didn’t see those 1776-era pamphleteers writing articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, first published between 1768 and 1771 in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh, but their influence and “notability” could not have been be denied, even in 1776. Peer reviewed articles with copious references may be appropriate for scholarly journals like Cell ^[2] and Nature ^[3], and yes, even Encyclopedia Britannica, but are they the ONLY appropriate measure on wikipedia? Shouldn’t the fact of notability determine? Salander44 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think you have misunderstood, Salander44. Sources don't have to be print sources to be considered reliable. Many online sources are considered perfectly reliable, but they have to have some reputation for editorial control and fact-checking, so personal blogs don't generally count. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Mainspace. Userfy or Draftify it. From start to finish, the whole effort (the movie and the Wikipedia article) is a pure vanity project. That's ok for a movie, but not an article in this online encyclopedia. The article does not meet the General Notability or Film Notability guidelines.

Examples of writing in the article that are promotional in tone and unreferenced include:

"It has developed a cult following in Akron and Cleveland, Ohio." [says who? unreferenced]

"...mocumentary [sic] from first-time Director Logan Fry. [2nd mention of his name in consecutive sections] This Triple-B movie (Blood, Boobs and Beast) is definitely not for the kids; but it is seen as becoming a cult classic dues [sic] to its humor and production values." [purely promotional unreferenced verbiage].

"The producers refer to it as 'a movie made for the not-so-sane, and the unabashedly adolescent. And definitely for those who love boobs.'" [Lacking substantive reviews as explained in the Guideline WP:NFO#Other_evidence_of_notability: "1.The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics," the article is padded with the flack-style text quoted here.

"But is the shaggy monster really Bigfoot, or just some devious psychopath in a gorilla suit?" [More press kit writing by the screenwriter-producer-director-Wikipedia author]

DonFB (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speaking directly to a previous comment:

From start to finish, the whole effort (the movie and the Wikipedia article) is a pure vanity project. That's ok for a movie, but not an article in this online encyclopedia. The article does not meet the General Notability or Film Notability guidelines.

Notability is the real issue here, but to suggest that a vast body of films are not, at least in part, “vanity projects” is to live a life in blinders. We all know that filmmakers are a modest and self-effacing lot.

"It has developed a cult following in Akron and Cleveland, Ohio." [says who? unreferenced]

References to “cult classic” can be removed until substantiated in print or online.

“[M]ocumentary” is a recognized alternate spelling (see Wiktionary) ^[1] but can be easily changed to meet individual editorial preferences. The “dues” misspelling was an auto-spellcheck error and easily fixed. I believe that the second mention “of Director Logan Fry” was the result of a wikipedia editor change, since it was not in the original article in that form. Because of early issues relating to promotion, I had already removed other references which might be deemed promotional. To my credit, I did not seek to add a profile portrait. See, for example: The Sound of Music (film) and Titanic (1997 film). The phrase “This Triple-B movie (Blood, Boobs and Beast) is definitely not for the kids” can be changed in favor of language that appears in the film itself: “Trigger Warning! Grizzlehead is a Triple-B Film ‘Blood, Boobs and Beast’ - Not Intended for any Audience Easily Offended by Blood, Boobs and Girls Without Heads.” See trailer for alternate title of the film. ^[2]

Wikipedia has articles for Mondo Trasho and Nightbeast, and a cursory review of the films referenced in List of cult films would yield many better examples of bad films, and probably more than a few questionable articles. Wikipedia also continues to maintain an incomplete article for Schlock (film) whose only references that I can see is IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Youtube, and doesn't even rise to the level of referencing a single blogger. Wikipedia also continues to maintain articles for films that have received solely local reviews, many now leading to dead links, and nothing more recent that 2102-13 Made in Cleveland. Poorly-made, tasteless movies, and articles nearly as flaky as the movies they document, are not outside the pale of wikipedia, nor are films that have received only fleeting local attention four and five years ago.

"But is the shaggy monster really Bigfoot, or just some devious psychopath in a gorilla suit?" [More press kit writing by the screenwriter-producer-director-Wikipedia author]

Positive suggestions for improvement would go much further than flame wars which are a waste of time for everyone. I do take the the film seriously, but in case anyone misses the point, the article is about a film that is gross, tasteless, sophomoric, adolescent and yes, even flaky. It does have an audience, but it is definitely not a film in the same league as Sound of Music or Titanic (1997 film). That doesn’t preclude notability. Salander44 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or Draftify as mentioned by others this fails WP:NMOVIE. While I understand everything Salander44 (talk · contribs) is trying to say, I think it’s best that it is moved back to their draft so if more relevant references do get published it can be assessed again later. As for comparing it to other films that are on Wikipedia, all that shows is that they should probably be nominated for deletion too rather than helping their cause for this article to be kept. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aha! I found the missing reference to much of the breezy, "unreferenced" language that some have found objectionable. Go to: "Rotten Tomatoes" ^[3] I can easily add the reference to the article, but will defer that edit for now. And really, I take User:NZ Footballs Conscience's comment seriously. Referencing other movies included on Wikipedia doesn't help this article's case, but it does call into question the objectivity and uniform application of standards of Wikipedia editors. The last thing in the world I would ever want is to have Schlock (film) or Made in Cleveland removed. I do not want to be the editor who roams the bowels of Wikipedia to find articles for deletion. Regardless of the fate of this article, and whether it's "Keep and Improve" or "Delete and Userfy", what I truly object to is ad hominem and personal attack in the nomination and a few of the comments. I know for a fact that some despise the film because of its title "Gimme Head" (about a monster who decapitates his victims), boobs and girls stumbling around without heads. I've lost friends for that last travesty. And, oh, actors who break the fourth wall and grin at the camera. But it could be worse. I am currently (when I can break free from this discussion) working on my next film: "Ro-Boob: The Farting Robot Monster," a send up to Robot Monster (1953) -- but with boobs... So let's "Keep and Improve" or "Delete and Userfy", but let's also skip the personal attacks and demeaning attitude. It does not fit anyone well. Salander44 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salander44 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I know the that the writer/director/producer wrote the piece to thank his cast and promote his own work. He's been slapped around enough. I'll volunteer to cut the cast to the first four, reduce the number of review extracts to two, one good one bad, and edit the infobox. Rhadow (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking the necessary coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the notability necessary for article status, and was penned with serious COI issues. Some of these have been suitably addressed, but I can't shake the fact that this "film" is not worthy of an article, despite the creator's efforts. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Orangemike added the tag: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" to the top of the article's page. I think I've been absolutely transparent. In fact, I added a line to the article that I was the author of the article, but another editor reverted it out. Check the history. It's there. So let me be absolutely clear, not only does "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject," but that very same "major contributor" was the writer, producer, director, cinematographer, location manager, production designer, art department, sound department and a few more that I forget, but I also had more than 30 dedicated people helping me ^[4]. I don't know why User:Orangemike didn't come out of hiding and post his objections here, but this is your chance, Mike. But if you're an editor willing to lend a helping hand. I'm asking. I'll even ask to visit the next time I visit family in Milwaukee. And for everyone, have the courage to look at this Wikipedia entry for Beautiful Ohio (film), and tell me here what references it has beyond IMDb to support notability. I know it's notable because of its director and cast, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements, and this is what we're here arguing about. So Userfy it. I'll get the notability you need. Salander44 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Just for your reference Salander44 what Orangemike did is correct and how you manage a COI for an article. You don't put the COI into the article but add the tag which admittedly should have been done earlier. As for you writing the page, it is a COI see WP:CONFLICT Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:NZ Footballs Conscience. When I first published the article, I became aware of the COI issues, and did see that "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia" WP:CONFLICT. Clearly it's not prohibited, but there were other measures that I could have followed more carefully. I did try to declare my COI by adding that I was the author of the article, but that wasn't correct, either. I had thought that "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia with the aim to allow anyone to edit articles." Wikipedia. I misunderstood. Salander44 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Wikipedia is for anyone to edit articles, it is just careful about COI because most of the time when people try write articles they have a vested interest in, it is hard to do so without getting caught up in Wikipedia Policies. Someone with your knowledge and background is welcome here and I would encourage you to edit other articles like the ones you have pointed out to try bring them up to requirement. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, User:NZ Footballs Conscience. Re: "I would encourage you to edit other articles like the ones you have pointed out to try bring them up to requirement," I'd love to give it a try, but I'm running on fumes now, and I'm not sure I can do it within all of the Wikipedia rules. I know for sure I could add additional references for at least two of the articles without breaking a sweat, and Schlock (film), in particular, is a favorite (I was directed to it by one of the subject film's reviewers). I'm just afraid I wouldn't do it right. Salander44 (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never one to avoid a challenge, I made my first revision to Schlock (film), User:NZ Footballs Conscience. Nothing too dramatic, just five references to Production. I didn't remove the "Citations Needed" tag. Not my job, but hope a master editor will. All quality refs. I'll watch the film again (it's in my little film library), and add more to Plot. Give me a bit of time for that. (Question: Does that need references, too? If I write the Plot section). More changes to come if I'm doing it right. And, hey, don't tell me all I need for my own film is a few quality references, like I added for Schlock (film) (TV Guide and The Washington Post). Not gonna happen overnight. Salander44 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So I hacked the article enough that it's no longer User:salander44's work. It took me two tries, sorry. If someone else wants to edit some more, have at it. I notice that more ink was spilled complaining about this article (look above) than the twenty minutes it took to fix it. It is no longer an orphan. It is no longer an ode to Logan Fry. Whether it's notable -- go ahead and vote. Your choice. Rhadow (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least one other Wikipedian made major edits to the subject article, for which I am grateful, and I'm grateful for yours as well. Just as many have helped me here, I will do my best to edit at least a few articles in the outré sci-fi, comedy-horror and schlock film categories, Schlock (film) being the first (thanks to Cordless Larry (talk) for his guidance and supervision). While John Waters, Ed Wood, Jr., Don Dohler and their ilk may be anathema to some, they bring inexplicable enjoyment to others. And it's the people who attempt to do what they have no training to do, have no right to do, and face failure more often than success, that we owe the advancement of culture. Salander44 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not altogether sure what a "7-day discussion" is, but I am requesting a decision from three Master Editors who have taken an interest in this discussion. I am hoping that they can reach consensus before anyone else goes for a straight Delete. See: Talk:Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot. Salander44 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The existence of this article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies against promotionism. It was created by a person who needs to study up on Wikipedia and what it is before they edit again. Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.